MAYBE PRESIDENT Obama does understand and respect the constitutional separation of church and state after all.

Or perhaps he understands and respects re-election politics better. Either way, Mr. Obama rightly backed off — sort of — from his unconstitutional plan to force faith-based employers to include contraceptive services and the “morning after” birth control pill as part of their employee health care coverage, even if the employers were morally opposed to such services.

The president now proposes that women employed at these institutions still have access to free contraceptive coverage. However, those employers wouldn’t have to pay for it as part of their coverage. Instead, the insurance companies who cover the employees would apparently eat the cost.

How’s that going to work? Who knows?

But just as there’s no such thing as a free lunch, there’s no such thing as free services. Someone will pay for this newest mandate. That’s why leading Catholics, including Cardinal-designate and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Timothy Dolan, were muted in their reaction to Friday’s announcement.

Constitutionally, Mr. Obama was out of line when his administration issued an edict that clearly violated the First Amendment. The issue wasn’t about birth control. It was, and is, about government control.

The president said Friday that he still wants to ensure that “women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work.” If that’s his objective, then he should seek it in a way that respects faith-based groups and the Constitution. He can’t rip down the wall between church and state.

In the last election, the Catholic vote helped Mr. Obama win election. By backing off on his edict, he shows he wants to keep them in his camp this November. Thus his latest move is as much about re-election politics as it is about the Constitution.

So who pays for these “free” services that Mr. Obama is promising? Like a lot of liberals, Mr. Obama is good at spending other people’s money. If faith-based groups wind up shouldering some of the costs, this controversy may not be over.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

"MAYBE PRESIDENT Obama does understand and respect the constitutional separation of church and state after all."

No he don't. The ONLY thing this guy voted for in the Senate was to " Adjourn"...everything else he voted " Present" With no record to hold against him the DNC managed to present him as a messiah. If you think Gingrich and Romney have been ugly....Just wait till they move the cross-hairs over to WHOEVER the DNC runs.

Your editorial twists the separation of church and state in knots. What you're saying is that Catholic bishops should control the family planning decisions of anyone who happens to work for an affiliated organization. How can this equal freedom of religion for any individual? Also, keep in mind that 98% of Catholics have used birth control at some point. The bishops can't enforce their beliefs through the church so they're attempting to get government to do it for them. So much for the conservative mantra of limited government.

Seems like too many of us are following the example of several incompetent elected officials who just fail to understand what is actually being said. The Catholic Church knows that individuals have the freedom to do what they want to do. Certainly, it believes that contraception is not natural and abortions kill human beings. The issue here is that our government cannot make a law that prohibits any religion the freedom of exercising its beliefs. Government cannot mandate that its citizens kill human beings.

"the issue here is that our government cannot make a law that prohibits any religion the freedom of exercising its beliefs."

Any religion. I thought freedom of religion was was individuals, not institutions. So pretty soon, only churches and corporations will be persons. Is that what you're saying when your saying their rights must be protected?

and again vrim misses the point. if the employees of the catholic church follow the catholic tenets, there will be no employee use of contraceptives. by the act of employing others, the catholic church has no right to avoid laws that other employers must follow.

... it is those who do not understand the separation of powers under the constitution. It is not just the Catholic Church under attack, it is the constitution. Expect more under the Obama administration if he is re-elected, especially the nomination of activist judges to SCROTUS.

You obviously do not know the Constitution. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Don't take my word for it, twelve states have already filed suit against this administration for requiring religious based organizations to engage in activities they believe to be immoral. Is that entertaining enough for you?